8 ms·

I don't blame them for refusing to sell child pornography regardless of the legality or the format. Media meant to trigger the pathologies of the mentally ill,

I don't blame them for refusing to sell child pornography regardless of the legality or the format. Media meant to trigger the pathologies of the mentally ill, such as content encouraging paedophiles to continue sexualizing children, isn't something that anyone has a duty to sell or distribute.

falcolas 5y ago
So, a point of clarification (not sure why I didn't put it in the original, I knew it would come up): This is not sexualizing minors. Or rather, it's as sexualizing of minors as war photographer's photos of nude children on the sidelines of combat. So, while someone with the right fetishes might find it titalating, your average citizen would not find it so. Plus, it's a drawing. I realize this doesn't matter in some countries, but it's just a drawing. Even had it had been a sexual image (again, it's not), it's not victimizing anybody.
- cforrester 5y ago
  My mistake. I think I confused it for that anime that's been causing some controversy lately, where the grown man has the body of a child. As far as drawn media not victimizing anyone goes: based on what I've read about the issue of mental illness, it's harmful for a mentally ill individual to engage in activities which reinforces their pathologies. In the case of a paedophile, it seems like it would be harmful to reinforce the link between sexual desire and children by enabling their fantasies. I don't believe that any temporary relief that offers would offset the elevating risk of committing a violent offence by someone whose mental illness is worsening.
  - claudiawerner 5y ago
    >I think I confused it for that anime that's been causing some controversy lately, where the grown man has the body of a child. You didn't confuse it; it's the very same one. Regardless, it's best not to pay attention to the drummed-up 'controversy' by both sides, with disgust and discomfort masquerading as 'critique' on Twitter. Of all recent-ish series, this is probably low on the list of 'controversial' ones.
    - cforrester 5y ago
      Having read dispassionate descriptions of some of the scenes and plot lines in that series, i.e. what occurred rather than someone's opinion about it, the controversy makes total sense to me. The fact that other series are worse is pretty troubling, too. Child sexual abuse shouldn't be exploited for the excitement of those who want to harm them.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      Like Goblin Slayer or Attack on Titan? Yeah. This is not even on the same plane of existence. Almost wholesome even. But that won't stop folks from critiquing it. The word "Pedophilia" has, with a complete lack of irony by its users, become the new "Think of the Children" as a justification for pushing agendas.
claudiawerner 5y ago
It's worth noting that the image in question is not pornographic. It's entirely possible to depict nudity and for it not to be pornographic. A passing familiarity with the manga or anime series would correct your misconception. Further, even if it were pornography, researchers (see Patrick Galbraith) have shown, through ethnographic field work in Japan and studies of the fans that they do not interpret these images to have the real-life referents of real children. Rather, they are symbols that only refer to other symbols and tropes. In other words, it's a "2D" phenomenon, and the naive interpretation that it is a "3D" one for the people who enjoy it is insufficiently nuanced and incorrect. It's also dubious whether such content counts as "encouraging pedophiles" in itself. As much as, say, BDSM pornography may encourage rapists, that does not mean that people enjoy it for other reasons - and there is an empirical reason to think that most people do enjoy it for other reasons. The blame lies on the consumer of the material and their thoughts, not the publisher who believes with good reason that the most common reading is not "encouraging pedophiles".
- cforrester 5y ago
  I would welcome some links to what you've read on this topic if you're willing. I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant education in psychology necessary to conduct such research, so I would strongly prefer medically-authoritative sources of information. Based on what I've read, I have absolutely no reason to believe that people who are sexually excited by the concept of children are limited to drawings of them, or that sexualized content featuring children is consumed by people who do not fantasize about raping children. As far as the blame, I'm comfortable blaming the publisher, too. There's a lot to abhor about someone who would choose to make money by sexualizing children for the entertainment of others.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    If you're asking for citations, you may wish to also provide them yourself. Otherwise it's merely using heresay and "Think of the children" brands of moralization to push your own morals onto others (other countries, in this instance).

falcolas 5y ago

So, a point of clarification (not sure why I didn't put it in the original, I knew it would come up): This is not sexualizing minors. Or rather, it's as sexualizing of minors as war photographer's photos of nude children on the sidelines of combat. So, while someone with the right fetishes might find it titalating, your average citizen would not find it so. Plus, it's a drawing. I realize this doesn't matter in some countries, but it's just a drawing. Even had it had been a sexual image (again, it's not), it's not victimizing anybody.

cforrester 5y ago
My mistake. I think I confused it for that anime that's been causing some controversy lately, where the grown man has the body of a child. As far as drawn media not victimizing anyone goes: based on what I've read about the issue of mental illness, it's harmful for a mentally ill individual to engage in activities which reinforces their pathologies. In the case of a paedophile, it seems like it would be harmful to reinforce the link between sexual desire and children by enabling their fantasies. I don't believe that any temporary relief that offers would offset the elevating risk of committing a violent offence by someone whose mental illness is worsening.
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  >I think I confused it for that anime that's been causing some controversy lately, where the grown man has the body of a child. You didn't confuse it; it's the very same one. Regardless, it's best not to pay attention to the drummed-up 'controversy' by both sides, with disgust and discomfort masquerading as 'critique' on Twitter. Of all recent-ish series, this is probably low on the list of 'controversial' ones.
  - cforrester 5y ago
    Having read dispassionate descriptions of some of the scenes and plot lines in that series, i.e. what occurred rather than someone's opinion about it, the controversy makes total sense to me. The fact that other series are worse is pretty troubling, too. Child sexual abuse shouldn't be exploited for the excitement of those who want to harm them.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    Like Goblin Slayer or Attack on Titan? Yeah. This is not even on the same plane of existence. Almost wholesome even. But that won't stop folks from critiquing it. The word "Pedophilia" has, with a complete lack of irony by its users, become the new "Think of the Children" as a justification for pushing agendas.

claudiawerner 5y ago

It's worth noting that the image in question is not pornographic. It's entirely possible to depict nudity and for it not to be pornographic. A passing familiarity with the manga or anime series would correct your misconception. Further, even if it were pornography, researchers (see Patrick Galbraith) have shown, through ethnographic field work in Japan and studies of the fans that they do not interpret these images to have the real-life referents of real children. Rather, they are symbols that only refer to other symbols and tropes. In other words, it's a "2D" phenomenon, and the naive interpretation that it is a "3D" one for the people who enjoy it is insufficiently nuanced and incorrect. It's also dubious whether such content counts as "encouraging pedophiles" in itself. As much as, say, BDSM pornography may encourage rapists, that does not mean that people enjoy it for other reasons - and there is an empirical reason to think that most people do enjoy it for other reasons. The blame lies on the consumer of the material and their thoughts, not the publisher who believes with good reason that the most common reading is not "encouraging pedophiles".

cforrester 5y ago
I would welcome some links to what you've read on this topic if you're willing. I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant education in psychology necessary to conduct such research, so I would strongly prefer medically-authoritative sources of information. Based on what I've read, I have absolutely no reason to believe that people who are sexually excited by the concept of children are limited to drawings of them, or that sexualized content featuring children is consumed by people who do not fantasize about raping children. As far as the blame, I'm comfortable blaming the publisher, too. There's a lot to abhor about someone who would choose to make money by sexualizing children for the entertainment of others.
- falcolas 5y ago
  If you're asking for citations, you may wish to also provide them yourself. Otherwise it's merely using heresay and "Think of the children" brands of moralization to push your own morals onto others (other countries, in this instance).